Last, for now, in a series of media work on CE

I've not listened to the audio yet, but the transcript is how I remember the discussion going. Unlike the Indy article, I think I was able to capture some of the nuances about research and deployment.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/20/238548240/turning-to-scientists-to-engineer-a-cooler-climate

The comments below the article (I know, I probably shouldn't read them) imply people still don't quite get that. I confess that I worry the research-deployment differentiation is at best difficult to convey and at worst an unrealistic personal construct - some sort of intellectual comfort blanket, or rose-coloured glasses, that allows me to rationalise my desire to research. 

Independent on Sunday article

New article on CE/GE in the Independent on Sunday today. Framing is OK (except for playing God/ saving/destroying planet stuff) although my comments wholly negative on GE/CE which don't really capture the nuances of my position. It is hard to distinguish research from deployment, and there is no clear blue water either, but I think I was pretty clear on the need for research during discussions with Memphis (the author). It was quite an interesting interview, one of a number I've done in the last week or two. It irkes me slightly that, having battled to develop a clear personal framing, newspapers produce the most sensationalist of headlines sometimes. I guess that's the nature of the beast...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/lets-play-god-the-scientific-experiments-that-might-save-the-world-or-destroy-it-8884386.html

Article in the Sun online

Is here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/5201259/best-ways-to-tackle-climate-change.html

I can't quote the piece in its entirety (and apologies it is behind the Sun's paywall) but, before anyone worries about the title (and selling the idea of geoengineering), here's what I wrote in summary...

"Using solar radiation management would be very difficult politically. 

Which country should control the technology, or decide where the aerosols should be released? 

Which country gets to decide how cold it is, and what happens if there are unintended consequences? 

If weather patterns are changed, there could be severe fallout for countries which are suddenly getting a lot more rain than usual - or, more likely, a lot less. 

None of these techniques are perfect and none should be considered a silver bullet.  None have been tested on a large enough scale to be certain they would work. They should be considered no better than an insurance policy. 

They might help out if your house catches fire, but it would be better to stop it catching fire in the first place. 

Of course, there is a better option. Stop pumping as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Almost all climate scientists believe that we have very little time to make this change before we will have to either adapt to climate change or engineer a solution. "

I also talked about CDR in very general terms, and the editor did a bit of scene setting. 

It was difficult to write and the editor and I went back and forth on the wording a lot but I hope it was worth it. My aim was to open up the debate and be as frank as possible without, in any way, advocating any other choice than conventional mitigation. I guess some (including Jack Stilgoe) would legitimately ask if this was normalisation. I hope not... 

Guardian piece

So, the Guardian piece was (I think) relatively well received. I've had extremely nice emails from colleagues, mostly around the idea that it was pleasing to see something thoughtful and balanced about climate engineering, which is nice. Some of the comments on the article were a bit odd, some were critical but one stood out -  they made the observation that the term 'climate engineering' was disingenuous. What they actually wrote was:

'Nice switch from "geoengineering" to "climate engineering". Makes it sound much more soft and cuddly.'
 
I'd probably not have paid too much attention to that but for the fact that (independent of the Guardian piece) my good friend Duncan McLaren (Friends of the Earth & Lancaster University) had made the same point at a meeting yesterday. Now, when Duncan speaks, I listen. He's a pretty serious thinker on this stuff and, whilst we don't always agree, his observations certainly affect me. He pointed out that there was some evidence 'climate engineering' was a term people were more comfortable with (he did not see that as a positive, neither do I). I chose to use climate engineering as I think it most accurately reflects the thing it is trying to describe. Geoengineering, to many, is building dams and culverts. Climate engineering is exactly what it says it is - the engineering of a large scale climate (natural) system. I need to ask Duncan where the evidence for his assertion is - I'm quite sure he has some. My feeling would be that the juxtaposition of something natural like 'climate' and the clearly anthropocentric term like 'engineering' (read mastery is some circumstances) is striking. Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Time will tell.

You can't have it both ways?

So, in case you've been under a rock all week the IPCC have released their fifth report. For the first time, the summary included a paragraph on climate engineering. Josh Horton at geoengineeringpolitics provides (as always) a decent and balanced piece with context here. I agree with Josh that the paragraph is neither supportive nor overly dismissive. The paragraph's inclusion has prompted a strong negative response from those worried about legitimising 'geoengineering' (really SRM and ocean fertilization) including predictable statements from both Clive Hamilton and etc group. They are pretty consistent with their opposition to SRM, and they have a right to be. Interestingly, Jack Stilgoe has waded into this space with a piece in the Guardian. That, in of itself is not particularly unusual - Jack is a salient commentator who has been working with (sometimes on) SPICE and with others thinking about climate engineering for some time. However, his position highlights a clear tension within the social scientist fraternity. Jack, and others, have spent the last years insisting that we engage with publics and broaden the debate. I think he's right. So, then, how is the inclusion of climate engineering (especially so heavily caveated) not addressing that aim? Surely the IPCC should be talking about climate engineering? I'm minded to agree that their cursory discussion in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers, in case like me you had to look it up) is not useful or really appropriate BUT I also think that there is a danger here that social scientists aren't practising what they preach. Suddenly, discussion is promoting legitimacy. How to engage then? Surely not by leading the public to their world view? That's clearly profoundly unethical. I'm afraid that, if it is to be discussed openly, then bodies like the IPCC will (and should) be charged with presenting it.

To put it another way, how do you discuss something this controversial with stakeholders (i.e. everyone) without bias. My personal framing (thanks in part to Phil MacNaughten and Jack for encouraging me to think this way) is agnosticism (see various different previous posts). This is not a rhetorical trick - as a scientist and in the absence of evidence I must be agnostic. It is not, however, the complete picture. My instincts are to be alarmed by large-scale intervention because of unintended consequences, attribution and selfishness (and/or greed). But, you cannot have it both ways, right? If the public are engaged and informed and, fairly and without leading, come to the conclusion that climate engineering is a legitimate course of action to consider, then I'm afraid that is an outcome that those opposed to climate engineering have to accept. It appears to me that Jack's piece counters his position that rational debate is the most desirable outcome. In a quickly released statement, etc group have condemned the inclusion and got to the nub of the debate with this sentence....'The actual sentences about geoengineering in the IPCC report matter less than the fact that they are there at all.' I'm sorry, but that is also the problem I have with both Jack's piece (whom I almost always agree with) and etc's stance. If the IPCC had been really scathing of climate engineering neither would, I suspect, have complained. Therefore it is the content of the paragraph that has perturbed them. A careful look at the paragraph suggests it is neither encouraging nor positive, rather simply capturing a (slightly outdated) conventional wisdom. I don't think you can object to discussion around climate engineering unless you are vehemently opposed to all research and deployment as an ideology. In that sense, etc group are entirely consistent. I'm not sure Jack, in this instance, can say the same. I feel similarly confused about Clive Hamilton's stance - his two most recent books 'Requiem for a Species' and 'Earthmasters' feel similarly juxtaposed.

screams from no-mans-land

This will probably be a fairly short post as, unlike most entries, I don't really have a specific point to make. The title is me musing on the polemic that surrounds climate engineering, and the fact that it is amplifying all the time. The headline is, of course, a note to Michael Mann's book, titled 'The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line'. I can honestly say I am not surprised by the lengths some will go to to discredit scientists, the following being one of a number of extreme examples from a distant scientific field.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/atrazine

Without trying to belittle those who have been on a real front line (OK, I admit the choice of analogy does make me squirm a bit Prof. Mann), I suspect this is how it feels to be vilified by one end of the spectrum in the AGW 'debate'. That got me thinking about climate engineering and those who research it. The point about the 'trenches' argument is that it is conventional, two adversarial groups squaring off (maybe the house of commons is a better analogy). Michael Mann no doubt has his compadres and must (I hope) take solace in their support. Climate engineering researchers however, you could argue, have it even worse. We are stuck, screaming, in no-mans-land (to push the analogy to breaking point) and taking fire from both sides. In fact, those with whom we typically identify are often more hostile that those with whom we normally vehemently disagree.

So, what now? Crawl back to the trenches and hope never to visit no-mans-land again, or stay there and face the flak.

Climate fatalism discussion

Fun discussion on Huffington Post Live channel yesterday, with three interesting and quite different climate activists. http://t.co/2bDiLBwyiC

Comments below amusing/flattering...!